R.G. 48964/2025 (opposizione all'esecuzione)
Trib. Milano · Jun 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Trib. Milano
- Record ID
- r-g-48964-2025-opposizione-all-esecuzione-2026-06-05
- Observed outcome
- The opposition was rejected, and the defendant was awarded costs limited to the study and introductory phases due to the inclusion of AI-hallucinated case law citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- €2,090
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified fabricated case law citations in the defendant's brief, attributing them to unverified AI usage. As a result, the court penalized the defendant by limiting the recoverable litigation costs to only the study and introductory phases, excluding other phases of the proceeding.
The court reasoned that the inclusion of non-existent or misattributed jurisprudential maxims in the defendant's brief constituted negligence and a failure to verify AI-generated content. Although the court noted this conduct could be considered a violation of art. 88 c.p.c. (duty of loyalty and integrity), it opted to limit the recovery of litigation costs to the study and introductory phases rather than imposing further disciplinary measures, as the underlying defense was otherwise well-founded.
This case illustrates a judicial response to AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings. By limiting recoverable costs, the court established a direct financial consequence for failing to verify AI-assisted research, emphasizing the professional duty of counsel to supervise automated tools.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- €2,090
- Procedural posture
- Judgment on opposition to execution (ex art. 615 c.p.c.) following the rejection of the debtor's claims and the identification of AI-generated misquotations in the defendant's filing.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court inferred the use of AI systems for drafting.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.